I have my own personal variant of utilitarianism that combines a bit of evolutionary theory with political philosophy. I think I babbled on about it in an earlier blog. I believe in a kind of "universal selection" that applies to all things - living and non-living. This works similarly to the multi-level selection theory of evolution. The key factors involved in universal selection is properly selecting the units of selection and their relative time and spatial scales.

Anyway, I believe that when universal selection is combined with utilitarianism, it creates a fundamentally sounder theory. It is nothing really special and somewhat simple.

All excerpts are from Mill JS. Utilitarianism. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.; 1957.

Mill first introduces the basic problem that has been troubling mankind - the foundations for a moral system of government.

Pg 3 "And after more than two thousand years the same discussions continue, philosophers are still ranged under the same contending banners, and neither thinkers nor mankind at large seem nearer to being unanimous on the subject than when the youth Socrates listened to the old Protagoras and asserted … the theory of utilitarianism against the popular morality of the so called sophist."

Mill wrote this back in 1861. It is just as applicable today. Mill contends that political philosophy is different from the "hard" sciences.

Pg 4 "But though in science the particular truths precede the general theory, the contrary might be expected to be the case with a practical art, such as morals or legislation."

Here I disagree. Morals and legislation function within the real world and are subject to the same laws and principles. It is a problem of divining those principles. However, Mill believes that it is possible to try to work down to key fundamental principles.

Pg 5 "Yet to support their pretensions there ought either to be some one fundamental principle or law at the root of all morality, or, if there be several, there shold be a determinate order of precedence among them; and the one principle, or the rule for deciding between the various principles when they conflict, ought to be self-evident."

Of course, people found their philosophies on different fundamental principles - liberty, equality, justice, and so on. For utilitarians, it is happiness. The arbitrariness of the choice creates problem.

Pg 6 "Although the nonexistence of an acknowledged first principle has made ethics not so much a guide as a consecration of men's actual sentiments, still, as men's sentiments, both of favor and of aversion, are greatly influenced by what they suppose to be the effects of things upon their happiness, the principle of utility, or, as Bentham latterly called it, the greatest happiness principle, has had a large share in forming the moral doctrines of even of those who most scornfully reject its authority."

Here is the fundamental problem. Political philosophers disagree about what the fundamental principle should be. They also seem to have the notion that this fundamental principle cannot be scientifically determined. I disagree. Political constructs exist within the real world, not in ivory towers. It is only due to a lack of the proper mental framework, memes, paradigms, whatever, that we haven't been able to find this principle. This fundamental principle should be rooted firmly in science and observation. Mill discusses the "inductive" school and how some have tried to go as far as possible backwards in trying to discern these fundamental principles, but they have not gone far enough. Utilitarians may be the closest, but ultimately, they too had to choose subjectively the principle of "greatest happiness." They define their philosophy as follows:

Pg 10 "The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals 'utility' or the 'greatest happiness principle' holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure."

This is their key definition. However, ultimately, this is NOT viable. They needed to go one step further. The ultimate foundation of all politics is the same law that governs Nature - survival.

It doesn't matter what you want your end goal to be. Happiness will be sacrificed for survival. If it does not operate in accord with the laws of Nature – the laws of selection – then it will eventually fail. All political systems and their institutions, whether founded on equality, social justice, or life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, will degrade over time because they are unstable, because they are founded upon fictions and notions of what we would like the world to be. They are artificial constructs with feet of clay.

There is only one law that rules all things. The law of selection.

(Of course, it is possible to create a relatively stable political system that maximizes happiness. Or maximizes liberty. Or the pursuit of happiness. However, the creators of that system cannot be oblivious to the power of selection and should design mechanisms into the political structure to account for the effects of selection and degradation over time.)

Higher pleasures

A basic problem with utilitarianism is how a system based upon "maximization of happiness" doesn't devolve into hedonism. To counter this, JSM cludged together the notion of "higher pleasures." Higher pleasures are more refined, altruistic types of behavior. This is a weak point of utilitarianism, and I believe that I can take apart the theory.

Pg 11 "Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites and, when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification."

Weak. JSM is arguing by assertion and assumption.

Pg 11 "But there is no Epicurean theory of life which does not assign to the pleasures of the intellect, of the feelings and imagination, and of the moral sentiments a much higher value as pleasures than to those of mere sensation."

Still assertion, but it is interesting. Could such notions be the work of memes? Memetic self-preservation? How much have memetic survival and co-evolution with humans shaped our society and our thinking? Memes are living organisms that have been used by us and have used us for thousands of years. Sometimes symbiotic, sometimes neutral, sometimes parasitic.

Pg 12-15 "quality in pleasures"

Here Mill talks about how there is a difference in quality of pleasures. These are weak arguments with lots of assertion and assumption.

For example,

Pg 13 "A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering, and certainly accessible to it at more points, than one of an inferior type; but in spite of these liabilities, he can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence."

Pg 13 "its most appropriate appellation is a sense of dignity, which all human beings possess in one form or other, and in some, though by no means in exact, proportion to their higher faculties, and which is so essential a part of the happiness of those in whom it is strong that nothing which conflicts with it could be otherwise than momentarily an object of desire to them."

Is it? Are you sure that it is "human dignity" that is the reason?

Pg 14 "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."

I suppose that is why everyone would prefer encyclopedias to beer.

He tries to counter this obvious flaw.

Pg 14 "Capacity for the nobler feelings is in most natures a very tender plant, easily killed, not only by hostile influences, but by mere want of sustenance; and in the majority of young persons it speedily dies away if the occupations to which their position in life has devoted them, and the society into which it has thrown them, are not favorable to keeping that higher capacity in exercise."

This is clearly bull and pulling arguments out of your butt. He is using the "everybody is dumb and irrational (except for me)" argument because he cannot figure out the problem.

"Higher pleasures" are due to group-level selection pressure (self-sacrifice, altruism) or perhaps by memetic pressures (freedom of thought).

The counter to the "ya wanna be a happy pig or a sad human" argument is straightforward. Maybe people don't want to be pigs for reasons other than intellect or nobility? He creates a false choice between only two options.

Let's make things more interesting, shall we? Choice of less intellect but beast-like strength? Choice of less intellect but great power? Choice of less intellect but sexual attractiveness? Would you rather be a Socrates dissatisfied or a king satisfied? Suddenly the choice of "higher pleasures" isn't so clear.

It is apparent why someone would not want to be a pig satisfied - and it has nothing to do with "higher pleasures."  They are simply weaker than us. Ultimately, it is about viability. Survival. Selection.

If pigs were our lords and masters despite their inferior intellect, if they kept all of humankind confined in pens to breed, if they roasted us on spits and carved us up on dinner tables to feast upon ... then would it be better to be a human dissatisfied or a pig satisfied?

Individual vs. group happiness

Pg 15 "for that standard is not the agent's own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether; and if it may possibly be doubted whether a noble character is always the happier for its nobleness, there can be no doubt that it makes other people happier, and that the world in general is immensely a gainer for it."

Here JSM is talking about individual vs group happiness. It shows that JSM is aware of individual vs. group pressures – but instantly chooses group happiness (maximization principle). There's lots of stuff about this in evolutionary theory regarding altruism and such.

Anyway, the key piece to realize is that there is a competition of interests and selection pressures at different levels. The happiness of the individual is in competition with the happiness of the family, village, city, nation, world, etc.

What is going on is the maximization of relative stability at all levels.

Then add memes to the mix. Treat them like the viruses that they are.

That is what is going on.

So, now we have at least something to work with that is rooted firmly in reality and not on some arbitrary, abstract principle.  But is it possible to construct a rational way to create political principles from this?  Well, from the one political philosophy class I took a while back I remember those utilitarian guys.  The maximization of happiness people.  Bentham and Mill?  [Mill was like a supergenius (with like a eleventy bazillion [IQ]) {who would like say to me, like (STFU n00bzor!!!!)}]  Okay, so that's kinda close to the whole pain and pleasure and survival deal we've been babbling about.

But I remember they screwed up in two major ways.  Mistake one – ultimately it is not happiness, but survival that is what drives existence what.  What!?!  If it is a choice between increased happiness and increased survival, survival wins (I suppose that's why humans are so good at living and being miserable about it at the same time).  Mistake two – the whole "higher pleasures" nonsense is a messed up attempt at justifying why we all aren't engaging in orgiastic debauchery if the whole thing was about tickling our pleasure centers.  Why do we defer pleasure and value things such as hard work and self-sacrifice and place value upon doodads like artistic expression, intellectual discourse, the sciences, and such gobbledygook?  So I think it was Mill who came up with the whole "higher pleasures" concept and stuff about sad Socrates being better than a happy pig (ergo a sad panda is better than a happy monkey).  But anyway, I think this whole "higher pleasures" stuff is probably magical fairyland thinking.  However, at the time, there wasn't a framework that could accommodate all of these different data points.

And a three.

But there is a way to explain it.  If you apply a multi-level selectionist view to politics, you can create a political philosophy grounded solidly on realistic principles.  Higher pleasures are explained simply as things that can improve group stability ("happiness") versus individual stability ("happiness").  Higher pleasures tend to be things that improve or benefit the common good / society in general / nobody in particular / everyone but me. 

MU and the fall of Atlantis.

So, if you tweak the theory of utilitarianism by combining it with multi-level selectionist theory from biology, then you get MU – Multi-level utilitarianism.  (See, I make a stinky political philosophy in my pants).  Then again, "mu" means nothing.  So, I suppose we're back to zero. 

But we're not, damn it!  Jeez, what would be the point of all this!  By acknowledging that there is a competition of interests between many levels of state – starting from the individual – then you can start to understand and see what is going on.  Equal rights, intellectual freedom, higher pleasures, and all of that other stuff start to make sense.  It is just a matter of tracking down the level at which the selection pressure is coming.  Autocratic governments, devoid of such values, can still form a viable, stable system – again, it is not happiness but stability that is key – although it would suck to live in one as a peon, I suppose.